United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
|
- Myles Harvey
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MARISA E. DIGGS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Respondent Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. DC I-1. Decided: November 1, 2011 MARISA E. DIGGS, of Washington, DC, pro se. KATY M. BARTELMA, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. Of counsel was MATTHEW H. SOLOMSON, Trial Attorney.
2 DIGGS v. HUD 2 Before DYK, MOORE, and O MALLEY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Marisa E. Diggs petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board ) affirming Ms. Diggs s removal from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (the agency ) for misconduct. Diggs v. Dep t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 2010 M.S.P.B. 151 (Jul. 22, 2010). Because Ms. Diggs s petition presents a mixed case involving a claim of discrimination, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. BACKGROUND The agency removed Ms. Diggs from her GS Management Analyst Position based on two charges: (1) rude, disruptive, aggressive, or intimidating behavior; and (2) misrepresentation. Both charges stemmed from Ms. Diggs s conduct on January 17, As to the first charge, the agency alleged that Ms. Diggs verbally berated her supervisor, Ms. Charlene Dean, approached her in a hostile manner, and told Ms. Dean that she would be sorry. The agency further alleged that, later that day, Ms. Diggs spoke to another supervisor, Ms. Renee C. Brown, in an agitated manner with her voice raised, was rude and threatening to a coworker, and disobeyed an instruction from Ms. Brown. With respect to the second charge, the agency alleged that Ms. Diggs misrepresented some of these events to other agency officials. Ms. Diggs appealed her removal to the Board, denying the charges in their entirety. She also alleged that the agency removed her in retaliation for prior Equal Employment Opportunity ( EEO ) activity, specifically earlier claims of sex discrimination. After a hearing, the Administrative Judge ( AJ ) issued an initial decision affirming the agency s removal action. The AJ found that
3 3 DIGGS v. HUD the agency proved its charges, the penalty was reasonable, and Ms. Diggs failed to prove her affirmative defense of retaliation. Ms. Diggs filed a petition for review, requesting that the full Board reconsider the AJ s Initial Decision. Though the Board concluded that the petition did not meet the criteria for review, it reopened the case on its own motion pursuant to 5 C.F.R Finding no error in the Initial Decision, the Board affirmed. On August 31, 2010, Ms. Diggs filed a petition with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) seeking review of the Board s final decision. In her petition, Ms. Diggs argued that her removal was in retaliation for complaints of sex discrimination she registered with the EEOC in late Upon review of the record, the EEOC found that, though Ms. Diggs had established a prima facie case of discriminatory retaliation given her record of prior protected activity, the evidence supported the conclusion that her removal was not motivated by retaliatory animus. Ms. Diggs also appealed the Board s final decision to this court. Upon initial review of Ms. Diggs s appeal, we determined that, given recent developments in the law, there was some question regarding our jurisdiction to consider claims from federal-sector employees who assert claims of retaliation based on earlier EEO activity. Given our obligation to assess the contours of federal jurisdiction in every case, we entered an order inviting supplemental briefing from the parties regarding this important question. Diggs v. U.S. Dep t of Hous. & Urban Dev., No , Dkt. No. 26 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 29, 2011) (order inviting further briefing). Both parties filed briefs asking this
4 DIGGS v. HUD 4 court to exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Diggs s appeal. 1 Id., Dkt. Nos. 31, 32. Though we have considered the parties submissions carefully, for the reasons set forth below, we disagree with both Ms. Diggs and the government regarding the scope of our jurisdiction. DISCUSSION Before we can reach the merits of a case, we must assess whether we may exercise subject matter jurisdiction, even if we make that assessment on a sua sponte basis. Int l Elec. Tech. Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 476 F.3d 1329, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although neither party initially raised the issue, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver, estoppel, or consent. See Brazos Elec. Power Coop. v. U.S. Dep t of Agric., 144 F.3d 784, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)). This court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from the Board. In particular, we lack jurisdiction over mixed cases i.e., those involving both: (1) a specific type of action against an agency which may be appealed to the [Board] ; and (2) an allegation in the nature of an affirmative defense that a basis for the action was discrimination within one of the categories listed in 5 U.S.C. 7702(a)(1)(B). 2 Williams v. Dep t of Army, 715 F.2d 1 Because Ms. Diggs is appearing before the court pro se, the court initially appointed counsel to assist her in complying with her obligation to file a timely brief on the jurisdictional question posed. Ms. Diggs objected to the appointment of counsel, however, and made it clear that she preferred to proceed pro se. The court honored Ms. Diggs s request and vacated the order appointing counsel to assist her. 2 In a mixed case involving both an adverse action claim and a discrimination claim, we have jurisdic-
5 5 DIGGS v. HUD 1485, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (en banc) (emphasis in original) ( [Section] defines the types of cases of discrimination which are excluded from the jurisdiction of this court.... ). Section 7702(a)(1)(B), in turn, sets forth the following categories of discrimination: (B)... discrimination prohibited by (i) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e 16), (ii) section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 (d)), (iii) section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), (iv) sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 633a), or (v) any rule, regulation, or policy directive prescribed under any provision of law described in clauses (i) through (iv) of this subparagraph U.S.C. 7702(a)(1)(B). Because Ms. Diggs s removal from the agency was an action appealable to the Board, see 5 U.S.C. 7701; 5 C.F.R , our jurisdiction turns on whether she alleged that one of the above-listed forms of discrimination was the basis for her removal. We find that she did. As an affirmative defense, Ms. Diggs alleged that the agency removed her in retaliation for prior EEO activity, tion over the adverse action claim if any claim of discrimination... raised before the Board has been abandoned and will not be raised or continued in this or any other court. Fed. Cir. R. 15(c). Ms. Diggs has not abandoned her discrimination claim; it is, in fact, her asserted defense to the misconduct charges against her.
6 DIGGS v. HUD 6 which included complaints of sex discrimination. It is well-established that Section 704 of Title VII (codified in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3) prohibits private employers from retaliating against an employee who files an EEO complaint premised on employment practices prohibited by Title VII. See, e.g., Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1435 (9th Cir. 1993); Shirley v. Chrysler First, Inc., 970 F.2d 39, (5th Cir. 1992); see also 42 U.S.C. 2000e- 3(a) ( It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.... ). It is less clear, however, whether Title VII s federal-sector provision, 5 U.S.C. 717, incorporating 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16, gives rise to a private right of action when the government engages in such retaliation. If it does, Ms. Diggs s allegation that she was removed in retaliation for EEO activity constitutes discrimination prohibited by Section 717 of Title VII and, thus, renders her petition a mixed case over which we lack jurisdiction under 7702(a)(1)(B)(i). See Williams, 715 F.2d at While two non-binding decisions of ours have reached conflicting results, 3 our sister circuits to have addressed 3 In Cruz v. Dep t of Navy, we rejected the government s conten[tion] that reprisal for EEO involvement is not discrimination encompassed within the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16, but this decision was vacated and reversed en banc. 906 F.2d 689, (Fed. Cir. 1990), rev d en banc on other grounds 934 F.2d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A decade later, however, we reached a contrary result, holding that, notwithstanding petitioner s claim that an agency retaliated against her for having filed an EEO complaint, petitioner failed to allege that a basis for the agency s action was discrimination within one of the categories listed in Baker v. Dep t of
7 7 DIGGS v. HUD the issue agree that 717 prohibits the government from engaging in retaliation based on the assertion of a claim premised on discrimination prohibited by Title VII. See Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 384 (4th Cir. 2011) ( Although neither the Supreme Court nor our court has squarely addressed whether 2000e-16(a) prohibits retaliation,... reading [42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(d) and 2000e-5(g)] together leaves us with little doubt that Congress incorporated the protections against retaliation afforded to private employees by 2000e-3(a). (quotations and citations omitted)); Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 476 F.3d 54, 60 (1st Cir. 2007) ( In Title VII, Congress intended for 42 U.S.C. 2000e to incorporate the provisions applicable to the private sector, including the private-sector antiretaliation provision. ), rev'd on other grounds, 553 U.S. 474 (2008); Porter v. Adams, 639 F.2d 273, (5th Cir. 1981) ( [B]y drafting 717 to prohibit any discrimination, Congress intended to bar the federal government from engaging in all those forms of discrimination identified in 703 and 704 [the private-sector anti-retaliation provision], and others as well. ); Ayon v. Sampson, 547 F.2d 446, 450 (9th Cir. 1976) ( We conclude that in enacting 2000e-16, Congress intended to, and did incorporate into that section the provisions of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting harassment or retaliation for the exercise of those remedial rights established by the Act. ). The Supreme Court, moreover, reached a similar result when interpreting the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ( ADEA ), which was patterned directly after Title VII s federalsector discrimination ban. See Gomez-Perez, 553 U.S. at 487, 491 (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that Interior, No , 2000 WL , at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2000).
8 DIGGS v. HUD 8 the ADEA s parallel provision prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination ). And, while it expressly declined to decide whether Title VII bans retaliation in federal employment, the Supreme Court noted that, [l]ike the ADEA s federal-sector provision, Title VII s federal-sector provision[] contains a broad prohibition of discrimination, rather than a list of specific prohibited practices. Id. at 487, 488 n.4; compare 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a) (personnel actions affecting federal employees shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ), with 29 U.S.C. 633a(a) (personnel actions affecting federal employees who are at least 40 years of age shall be made free from any discrimination based on age ). Thus, our sister circuits and the Supreme Court have found that, when Congress broadly drafts provisions prohibiting any discrimination by the federal government, it intends to bar the government from engaging in, among other practices applicable to private employers, retaliation against an employee who complains of illegal discrimination. We agree, as apparently did the EEOC, when it adjudicated Ms. Diggs s retaliation claim. 4 Accordingly, because we find that Ms. Diggs s retaliation claim premised as it was on her prior EEO activity is a discrimination claim prohibited by 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we find that her claims present a 4 Notably, after the EEOC adjudicated her claim, Ms. Diggs was notified of her right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court in order to challenge the EEOC s conclusion.
9 9 DIGGS v. HUD mixed case which falls outside our jurisdictional reach. See 5 U.S.C. 7702(a)(1)(B). 5 The parties respective arguments urging that we exercise jurisdiction in this matter do not persuade us to the contrary. Ms. Diggs argues that, by accepting her case for filing and placing it on the calendar for resolution, this court necessarily has already exercised jurisdiction over her claim and may not now revisit that conclusion. Petitioner s Supp. Br Indeed, Ms. Diggs contends that this court s inquiry into the scope of its own jurisdiction is being conducted solely so as to delay resolution of her appeal, particularly because the government does not contest our authority to proceed. The government, on the other hand, cites to our decision in Baker v. Dep t of Interior, supra n.2, for the proposition that a reprisal claim, even when premised on prior EEO activity, is not a discrimination claim listed in 7702 and is, accordingly, not excluded from our jurisdiction. Neither contention changes our mind. 6 As for Ms. Diggs s assertions, while we understand how a pro se claimant might be surprised that a jurisdictional bar could be raised for the first time long after her appeal was docketed, it is the job of the panel who assesses the merits of an action, and not the Clerk s office 5 In her Supplemental Brief, Ms. Diggs confirms our characterization of her claim: Petitioner contends that her case # is an employment matter and was appealed to the MSPB and her affirmative defense was retaliation for prior EEO activity. 6 The government also discounts the EEOC s resolution of Ms. Diggs s retaliation claim as based on a mistaken view of the law in this area. While the EEOC s interpretation of its own jurisdiction is not determinative of ours, it is notable that the EEOC also characterizes federal-sector retaliation claims as claims of discrimination under Title VII.
10 DIGGS v. HUD 10 on intake or the parties in their briefing, to police its own jurisdiction. As noted earlier, moreover, neither the parties consent to our jurisdiction nor the passage of time while a matter is pending can confer jurisdiction on this court where our jurisdiction is statutorily barred. See Dunklebarger v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 130 F.3d 1476, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)) ( It is well settled that no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a tribunal and that the principles of estoppel do not apply to vest subject-matter jurisdiction where Congress has not done so. ). The government s reliance on Baker is similarly unpersuasive. First, Baker was a nonprecedential decision, which is not binding on this panel. More importantly, the rationale employed in Baker is precisely that urged by the dissent and rejected by the majority in Gomez-Perez, 553 U.S. at (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). 7 Despite the different statutory scheme at issue there, we find no sound basis upon which to distinguish the Supreme Court s analysis in Gomez-Perez from the circumstances presented here. We also decline to create a circuit split 7 The government also cites Webster v. Dep t of the Army, 911 F.2d 679, (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Warren v. Dep t of the Army, 804 F.2d 654, (Fed. Cir. 1986) in support of its claim that we possess jurisdiction to consider this matter. Neither case supports the position the government urges here, however, because neither involved allegations of reprisal for prior EEO activity. Webster involved alleged retaliation for union activities and Warren involved retaliation for whistleblower activity. Neither form of retaliation is expressly excluded from the scope of our jurisdiction by 7702 because neither constitutes discrimination prohibited by the statutory provisions enumerated therein.
11 11 DIGGS v. HUD regarding the scope of 5 U.S.C. 717 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. For all of these reasons, we hold that affirmative defenses of reprisal for prior EEO activity are assertion of discrimination under Title VII and within the meaning of 5 U.S.C Accordingly, we dismiss Ms. Diggs s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it presents a mixed case which we may not review. DISMISSED COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 553 U. S. (2008) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 06 1321 MYRNA GOMEZ-PEREZ, PETITIONER v. JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationNo MYRNA GOMEZ-PEREZ, PETITIONER v. JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL
No. 06-1321 JUL, 2 4 2007 MYRNA GOMEZ-PEREZ, PETITIONER v. JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS EOR THE EIRST CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SARAH BENNETT, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, and DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Intervenor. 2010-3084 Petition for review
More informationBeth Kendall v. Postmaster General of the Unit
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-18-2013 Beth Kendall v. Postmaster General of the Unit Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MARIE C. CONFORTO, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. 2012-3119 Petition for Review of the Merit Systems Protection Board
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RAMONA LUM ROCHELEAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-56029 D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01774-CJC-JPR
More informationNO IN THE FLYING J INC., KYLE KEETON, RESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
NO. 05-1550 IN THE FLYING J INC., v. KYLE KEETON, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit RESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
More informationU.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington Field Office ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT JUDGMENT
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington Field Office 131 M Street, N.E. Suite 4NW02F Washington, DC 20507 (202 419-0713 TTY (202 419-0702 FAX (202 653-6053 1-800-669-4000, Complainant,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:09-cv MSS-GJK.
SHARON BENTLEY, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-11617 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:09-cv-01102-MSS-GJK [DO NOT PUBLISH] FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No CHRYSOULA J. KOMIS, Appellant SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-3813 CHRYSOULA J. KOMIS, Appellant v. SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR On Appeal from the United States District
More informationCase 3:16-cv L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:16-cv-02430-L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHEBA COWSETTE, Plaintiff, V. No. 3:16-cv-2430-L FEDERAL
More informationDefense Logistics Agency Instruction. EEO Complaint Process
Defense Logistics Agency Instruction DLAI 7406 September 10, 2009 DLA-DO EEO Complaint Process References: 29 CFR, Part 1614 and EEOC MD-110. This Instruction supersedes DLA Regulation Number 1446.1, April
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LELAND A. HARGROVE, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. 2010-7043 Appeal from the United
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-370 In The Supreme Court of the United States JAMEKA K. EVANS, v. Petitioner, GEORGIA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, et al., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationAppeal No Agency No. 4A Hearing No X
Page 1 of6 Roberta M. Roberts v. United States Postal Service 01986449 April 11, 2000 Roberta M. Roberts, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast/New
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Ward v. Mabus Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA VENA L. WARD, v. RAY MABUS, Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. C- BHS ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
More informationNo In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 16-742 In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES --------------------------------------------------- LESLIE A. KERR, Petitioner v. SALLY JEWELL, Secretary of Department of the Interior, Respondent.
More informationU.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box Washington, DC 20013
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sandra M. McConnell et al., a/k/a Velva B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General,
More informationCase 1:15-cv MJW Document 89 Filed 04/11/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01523-MJW Document 89 Filed 04/11/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 15-cv-01523-MJW ROBERT W. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M GENE E.K. PRATTER NOVEMBER 15, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY A. WIEST, et al., : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : v. : : THOMAS J. LYNCH, et al., : : No. 10-3288 Defendant. : M E M
More informationCase 3:13-cv DPJ-FKB Document 48 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 3:13-cv-00771-DPJ-FKB Document 48 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION JAMES BELK PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV771 DPJ-FKB
More informationNo LYNDA MARQUARDT, PETITIONER U. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
JOt 2 Z 2o0 No. 08-1048 LYNDA MARQUARDT, PETITIONER U. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CO UR T OF A Pt EALS FOR THE FIFTH
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-187 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LOUIS CASTRO PEREZ, v. Petitioner, WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
EDWIN ASEBEDO, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 17, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. KANSAS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Plaintiff Harry J. Samuels appeals from the entry of summary judgment in
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 14, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT HARRY J. SAMUELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 06-7157 September Term, 2007 FILED ON: MARCH 31, 2008 Dawn V. Martin, Appellant v. Howard University, et al., Appellees Appeal from
More informationMcKenna v. Philadelphia
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-25-2008 McKenna v. Philadelphia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4759 Follow this
More informationCase 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.
More information1. Purpose. 2. Authority
Procedures for Processing EEO Grievances Pursuant to Article 47 of the May 11, 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the National Treasury Employee Union 1.
More informationKwame Dwumaah v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-13-2015 Kwame Dwumaah v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationMeredith, Arthur, Beachley,
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2640 September Term, 2015 YVETTE PHILLIPS v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. Meredith, Arthur, Beachley, JJ. Opinion by Arthur, J. Filed: February 15,
More informationInvestigating EEO complaints. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Investigating EEO complaints Description: This is a course for EEO investigators (i.e., those who investigate the formal complaint and prepare a Report of Investigation (ROI). The topics covered include
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT RULING RE: DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 30]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ROBERT CASSOTTO, : Plaintiff, : : CIVIL ACTION NO. v. : 3:07-cv-266 (JCH) : JOHN E. POTTER, : Postmaster General, : OCTOBER 21, 2008 Defendant. : I.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Derek Hall appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment to
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 15, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DEREK HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Plaintiff, DUNBAR DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC., Defendant. Unhed 3tatal
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ROBERT A. BERMAN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Respondent. 2010-3052 Petition for review of
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1144 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CARLO J. MARINELLO, II Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.
Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11084 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22737-DLG AARON CAMACHO
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3043 ANTHONY TORRES, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent. Aaron L. Martin, Martin & Kieklak
More information[Vol. 15:2 AKRON LAW REVIEW
CIVIL RIGHTS Title VII * Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 0 Disclosure Policy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Corp. 101 S. Ct. 817 (1981) n Equal Employment Opportunity
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More informationCase 1:14-cv MPK Document 45 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:14-cv-00215-MPK Document 45 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TINA DEETER, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 14-215E
More informationReleases and the Law of Retaliation: Theories and Recent Developments
Releases and the Law of Retaliation: Theories and Recent Developments By ERIC S. DREIBAND Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC and DAVID A. RAPPAPORT Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-1277 Document: 64-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2017 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ELON L. EBANKS, Claimant-Appellant v. DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv PGB-TBS.
Catovia Rayner v. Department of Veterans Affairs Doc. 1109482195 Case: 16-13312 Date Filed: 04/10/2017 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13312
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 13-5055 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2014 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ERIC D. CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5055 Appeal
More informationCase 2:17-cv JAD-VCF Document 38 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :-cv-00-jad-vcf Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Jewell Bates Brown, Plaintiff v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No.: :-cv-00-jad-vcf Order Denying
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
TERRY A. STOUT, an individual, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1
Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.
More information2016 WL (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States.
2016 WL 1729984 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Jill CRANE, Petitioner, v. MARY FREE BED REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, Respondent. No. 15-1206. April 26, 2016.
More informationCase 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-01144-PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D., Civil Action No. 04-0280
More informationPlaintiff, 1:14-CV-0771 (LEK/RFT) Defendant. MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HUA LIN, Plaintiff, -against- 1:14-CV-0771 (LEK/RFT) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 560 U. S. (2010) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv VMC-TBM.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] NEELAM UPPAL, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13614 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-00634-VMC-TBM FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.
Case: 18-2195 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 20-1 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1044 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From
More informationThe Mixed-Case Dilemma in Federal Sector Employment Appeals
The Mixed-Case Dilemma in Federal Sector Employment Appeals Why Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Administrative Judges Should Be Permitted to Reach the Merits of Discrimination Claims in Mixed Constructive
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FEDERAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION - STATESIDE REGION, KAREN GRAVISS, Petitioners v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DOMESTIC DEPENDENTS ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 WO Guy Pinto, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated of Texas (FN), et al., Defendants. FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More information2016 WL (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States.
2016 WL 1212676 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Jill CRANE, Petitioner, v. MARY FREE BED REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, Respondent. No. 15-1206. March 24, 2016.
More informationStremple v. Sec Dept Veterans
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-27-2008 Stremple v. Sec Dept Veterans Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3807 Follow
More information0:11-cv CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11
0:11-cv-02993-CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Torrey Josey, ) C/A No. 0:11-2993-CMC-SVH )
More informationGaffar v. Atty Gen USA
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2009 Gaffar v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4105 Follow this and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationPolice or Regulatory Power Exception to Automatic Stay. Linda Attreed, J.D. Candidate 2013
2012 Volume IV No. 3 Police or Regulatory Power Exception to Automatic Stay Linda Attreed, J.D. Candidate 2013 Cite as: Police or Regulatory Power Exception to Automatic Stay, 4 ST. JOHN S BANKR. RESEARCH
More informationAlpha Jalloh v. Atty Gen USA
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-13-2011 Alpha Jalloh v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3623 Follow this
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO: 11-CV-1899 W (NLS) Plaintiff, Defendant.
Sterrett v. Mabus Doc. 1 1 1 MICHELE STERRETT, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant. CASE NO: -CV- W (NLS) ORDER GRANTING
More informationJimmy Johnson v. Atty Gen USA
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-16-2002 Jimmy Johnson v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket No. 01-1331 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00252-RPM LAURA RIDGELL-BOLTZ, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch v. Plaintiff, CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-3054 DAVID M. PARRISH, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Intervenor. Jeffrey A. Dahl,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-3171 JUDY C. TEXEIRA, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent. Morris E. Fischer,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-3289 CANDACE N. MCBETH, v. Petitioner, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Ethel L. Munson,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-484 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, PETITIONER v. NAIEL NASSAR ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DENNIS W. COGBURN, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee 2014-7130 Appeal from the United States
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term (Argued: January 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019) Docket No.
18 74 United States v. Thompson UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2018 (Argued: January 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019) Docket No. 18 74 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
More informationSalvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2006 Salvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1449
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before KASOLD, Chief Judge, and HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 04-584 LARRY G. TYRUES, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before KASOLD, Chief Judge, and HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
--cv Dowrich-Weeks v. Cooper Square Realty, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order
More informationby DAVID P. TWOMEY* 2(a) (2006)). 2 Pub. L. No , 704, 78 Stat. 257 (1964) (current version at 42 U.S.C. 2000e- 3(a) (2006)).
Employee retaliation claims under the Supreme Court's Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. White decision: Important implications for employers Author: David P. Twomey Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/1459
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dana Holding Corporation, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1869 C.D. 2017 : Argued: September 13, 2018 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Smuck), : Respondent : BEFORE:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HALLIBURTON COMPANY, No. 13-60323 Petitioner, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 11, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ADMINISTRATIVE
More informationDean Schomburg;v. Dow Jones & Co Inc
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-14-2012 Dean Schomburg;v. Dow Jones & Co Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-2415
More informationThe Whistleblower Protection Act: An Overview
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports and Issue Briefs Federal Publications March 2007 The Whistleblower Protection Act: An Overview L. Paige Whitaker
More informationGindi v. Bennett et al Doc. 4. reasons stated below, plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint within thirty
Gindi v. Bennett et al Doc. 4 Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------){ LISA GINDI, Plaintiff, - against
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3120 TERESA C. CHAMBERS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Respondent. Paula Dinerstein, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,
More informationCarl Simon v. Govt of the VI
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-9-2012 Carl Simon v. Govt of the VI Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 09-3616 Follow this and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X JENNIFER WILCOX,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER WILCOX, : Plaintiff, : : -against- : 11 Civ. 8606 (HB) : CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Joseph v. Fresenius Health Partners Care Systems, Inc. Doc. 0 0 KENYA JOSEPH, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, RENAL CARE GROUP, INC., d/b/a FRESENIUS
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2009 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its Rules. These amendments are
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 11, 2009 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court MEREDITH KORNFELD; NANCY KORNFELD a/k/a Nan
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-345
Case 4:12-cv-00345 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 05/31/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION KHALED ASADI, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-345
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Agency No. A versus
Case: 15-11954 Date Filed: 07/05/2016 Page: 1 of 19 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-11954 Agency No. A079-061-829 KAP SUN BUTKA, Petitioner, versus U.S.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LEONARD BERAUD, Claimant-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. 2013-7125 Appeal from the United States
More informationRestituto Estacio v. Postmaster General
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-28-2009 Restituto Estacio v. Postmaster General Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1626
More informationAntonello Boldrini v. Martin Wilson
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-13-2015 Antonello Boldrini v. Martin Wilson Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationEqual Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maharaja Hospitality Inc, d/b/a Quality Inn by Choice Hotels
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program 8-1-2007 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maharaja Hospitality Inc, d/b/a Quality Inn by Choice
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NORMITA SANTO DOMINGO FAJARDO, Petitioner, No. 01-70599 v. I&NS No. A70-198-462 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
More informationCase 0:06-cv JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:06-cv-61337-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 10 KEITH TAYLOR, v. Plaintiff, NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More information